Military Losses in the Ukraine

[Jake899]

Sourced from the excellent Oryx blog, I will input the basic data here and try to keep it regularly updated.
The Oryx team only list losses that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, I.e. there is video or photographic evidence of the loss. By all means Google the Oryx blog and check these individual losses for yourselves. But for the general ease of it I will post the totals of both sides here.

[Jake899]

Russian losses as of Monday 28th of March:

310 tanks
229 armoured fighting vehicles
303 infantry fighting vehicles
77 armoured personnel carriers
12 Mine Resistant ambush protected vehicles
65 infantry mobility vehicles
12 communications stations
60 engineering vehicles and equipment
63 anti tank guided missiles
24 Man Portable Air Defence systems
42 towed artillery
60 self propelled artillery
34 multiple rocket launchers
3 anti aircraft guns
9 self propelled anti aircraft guns
40 surface to air missile systems
3 radars
6 jammers and deception systems
16 aircraft
36 helicopters
16 UAVs
3 Naval ships
2 logistics trains
640 jeeps, trucks and vehicles

[Jake899]

Ukrainian losses as of 28th March:

79 tanks
60 Armoured fighting vehicles
60 infantry fighting vehicles
29 Armoured Personnel Carriers
32 infantry mobility vehicles
7 engineering vehicles
51 antitank guided missiles
16 Man portable Air Defence Systems
25 Towed Artillery
16 Self Propelled Artillery
6 Multiple Rocket Launchers
2 Anti-aircraft guns
1 Self Propelled Anti-aircraft gun
21 Surface to Air missile launchers
10 Radars
12 Aircraft
1 Helicopter
9 UAVs
13 Naval ships
186 trucks, jeeps and other vehicles

[Jake899]

Mr Spoon said:

Good. Although it will take them decades to recover, Putin's tank scrap metal will hopefully be a start.

Not really sadly. Most destroyed vehicles have been struck with armour piercing rounds, the dense depleted uranium projectiles making short work of thick armour but in doing so, liberally coating the vehicle remains and the surrounding area in radioactive material. As discovered by the massive rise in birth defects after the middle eastern wars. Nobody wins in war, not the scrap man and not the scrap man’s children.

[Jake899]

Marumi said:

I saw a great stat that Ukraine has captured so many Russian tanks, that it might actually have more than it started with.

When I get a moment I’ll tally up the materiel that has been captured by Ukrainian forces from the Russian military. However, it won’t tell us what’s intact, what can be repaired, and what will be harvested for spares and discarded. But you’re right, its a significant number or equipment.

[Jake899]

mcdjl said:

= =||= Ukraine=||= Russia =||

tanks	79	310
armoured fighting vehicles	60	229
infantry fighting vehicles	60	303
armoured personnel carriers	29	77
Mine Resistant ambush protected vehicles		12
infantry mobility vehicles	32	65
communications stations		12
engineering vehicles and equipment	7	60
anti tank guided missiles	51	63
Man Portable Air Defence systems	16	24
towed artillery	25	42
self propelled artillery	16	60
multiple rocket launchers	6	34
Anti aircraft guns	2	3
Self propelled anti aircraft guns	1	9
surface to air missile systems	21	40
Radars	10	3
Jammers and deception systems		6
aircraft	12	16
helicopters	1	36
UAVs	9	16
Naval ships	13	3
Logistics trains		2
jeeps, trucks and vehicles	186	640

Ooh lovely! You clever chap, you, thanks.

[Jake899]

Byker28i said:

Source?

Please read the first post.
You can Google “Oryx Ukraine”
On that excellent resource you will find a curated list of losses, with a link to a source showing the individual items loss.

[Jake899]

Russian materiel captured by Ukrainian forces (and farmers)
Tanks: 131
Armoured Fighting Vehicles 87
Infantry Fighting Vehicles 107
Armoured Personnel Carriers 41
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles 5
Infantry Mobility Vehicles 20
Communication Stations 5
Engineering Vehicles and Equipment 31
Anti-tank Guided Missiles 39
Man portable air defense systems 24
Heavy Mortars 8
Towed Artillery 27
Self propelled artillery 24
Multiple Rocket Launchers 15
Anti-aircraft artillery 3
Self propelled Anti-aircraft artillery 1
Surface to Air Missile Systems 12
Radars 2
Jammers and deception systems 2
UAVs 5
Trucks, Vehicles and Jeeps 185

Would anyone intelligent like to put that into an excel and find the percentages?
It’s an army on its own, isn’t it.

[Jake899]

mcdjl said:

That looks like:

Item	Lost by Ukraine	Lost by Russia	Captured by Ukraine	Captured by Russia
tanks	79	310	131
armoured fighting vehicles	60	229	87
infantry fighting vehicles	60	303	107
armoured personnel carriers	29	77	41
Mine Resistant ambush protected vehicles		12	5
infantry mobility vehicles	32	65	20
communications stations		12	5
engineering vehicles and equipment	7	60	31
anti tank guided missiles	51	63	39
Man Portable Air Defence systems	16	24	24
towed artillery	25	42	27
self propelled artillery	16	60	24
multiple rocket launchers	6	34	15
Anti aircraft guns	2	3	3
Self propelled anti aircraft guns	1	9	1
surface to air missile systems	21	40	12
Radars	10	3	2
Jammers and deception systems		6
aircraft	12	16	2
helicopters	1	36
UAVs	9	16	5
Naval ships	13	3
Logistics trains		2
jeeps, trucks and vehicles	186	640	185
Heavy motars			8

Excellent buddy thanks.
A quick look at the data shows missile systems and aircraft are really the only net loss for the Ukraine, in most other factors the proportions are moving in their favour. Let’s remember that captured DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN USEABLE. The Ukrainians may not be able to repair, service or rearm Russian war booty.
The aircraft and missile systems are also the highest strategic value items and the hardest to replace. The fact that these are not being captured indicates they are being destroyed by precision strikes from afar rather than overrun on the ground, and the media reports certainly back that up.
On the positive side, both sides use a majority of these weapons (although in different iterations) so many parts, systems, ammunition and training will be interchangeable.
For example both Ukraine and Russia operate the T-64 and T72 tanks, so Ukrainian tank crews should be able to jump straight in and go. However many of the Russian T-72 tanks are “B” or newer models. I am a tank ignoramus but if aircraft are anything to go by, I expect targeting systems, radios etc will be quite different and take some training to use efficiently.

[Jake899]

I personally don’t think its insane or a surprise. Taking control of a country the size of the Ukraine with a hostile population is very, very hard.
It’s no surprise the Russians have struggled, and no bad reflection on the average Russian soldier.
It seems to be true that the Russians underestimated the Ukrainians, but it all needs to put into the context of what the Russian goal is here, and we simply do not know. So its hard to say whether they have failed or not. But they certainly haven’t impressed.

[Jake899]

deadtom said:

Jake899 said:

Not really sadly. Most destroyed vehicles have been struck with armour piercing rounds, the dense depleted uranium projectiles making short work of thick armour but in doing so, liberally coating the vehicle remains and the surrounding area in radioactive material. As discovered by the massive rise in birth defects after the middle eastern wars. Nobody wins in war, not the scrap man and not the scrap man’s children.

Tank nerd version: I think most of the Russian AFVs are being destroyed by shaped charge munitions rather than KE projectiles, so shouldn't be contaminated with DU (unless of course the stowed ammunition on the destroyed vehicle is impacted directly which could feasibly cause spalling and shattering of the DU rounds).


Non tank nerd version: I think most of the Russian tanks and other vehicles have been destroyed by weapons that don't use depleted uranium.

Thanks Tom, really nice to have someone a bit more knowledgeable on ground forces weigh in here. Tell me; does field artillery ever use an anti-armour round? I know its not their main use but there must be the provision to fulfill that role?

[Jake899]

deadtom said:

Jake899 said:

Thanks Tom, really nice to have someone a bit more knowledgeable on ground forces weigh in here. Tell me; does field artillery ever use an anti-armour round? I know its not their main use but there must be the provision to fulfill that role?

It must be a symptom of being on PH too long, but I am unsure whether your reply was earnest, so I shall answer twice to cover both possibilities.

A) you are being genuine.

Thank you and I am glad to be useful. Unfortunately I must now disappoint you because my knowledge of modern artillery is not particularly expansive. Off the top of my head I can't think of a specific anti armour capability that the artillery has (at least not against heavy armour), but that's not to say they don't use DU rounds against fortified structures even if not against armoured vehicles. I vaguely know a few people in various bits of the Royal Artillery who I could ask as it is an interesting question given how much the Russians are firing into Ukrainian cities.

Hopefully some of the other PHers with military experience and/or knowledge will be along shortly to be more useful.

I should clarify that while I was briefly in the Army, it was probably the least illustrious military career in history, and most of my knowledge comes from being a life long tank nerd rather than real life experience.

B) you are being sarcastic

well that's just mean.

I assure you its A! And its a shame that you have been swayed to believe its otherwise. I know artillery is rarely used in direct attacks against armour but I was sure it was within its capabilities.
May I also ask a further question: with the abundance of Anti armour weaponry, ie NLAAW and the like, is the tank a dying method of warfare? Bearing in mind that historically people continue to use weapons long after they have been shown to be no longer suitable.

[Jake899]

ian in lancs said:

Do the 'lost by Russia' numbers include 'captured by Ukraine'? For example Russia has lost 16 aircraft and 2 have been nicked by Ukraine. Does that mean Russia have lost 16 or 18?

Numbers are included so for your aircraft example, 16 lost, of which 2 are captured.
The numbers also have an additional “abandoned” category but these have not been added to the Ukrainian inventory.

[Jake899]

rdjohn said:

Interesting that human life does not seem to get counted in this scoresheet.

What does seem pretty clear in this clusterfk is that in any war with NATO, Russia would need to turn to its chemical and nuclear arsenal at a pretty early stage.

The human cost is much harder to pin down.
Russian losses are something between the 1351 the Russian media claims, and the 15000 estimated by NATO
Ukrainian military losses and civilian costs are even harder to approximate. They understandably don’t want to demoralize their forces and populace, and I’m unable to find a Russian estimate of Ukrainian losses to balance things out.
Civilian losses according to the UN: 1,151 deaths
Civilian losses according to the Ukrainian government: 6,175
Ukrainian forces KIA according to the Ukrainian Government: 1300
Ukrainian forces KIA according to US government estimate: 2000-4000

All numbers as of 22nd of March. The true numbers are as always, somewhere in the middle.

While it seems easy and interesting to list destroyed war materiel, its a horrible thing to consider thousands of civilians killed.

[Jake899]

take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:

Good effort but the numbers / categories don't make sense.

An AFV is the catch all term for ALL tracked or wheeled armoured vehicles.

Under that sits: tanks, APCs, IFV (basically an armed APC design to carry troops then provide fire support once deployed) , self propelled gubs etc.

Armoured fighting vehicle in this context contains the following for Russian forces:
6 BRM-1K
2 BMP-1Khs
1 BRDM-2
101 MT-LB
3 MT-LB with ZU-23 AA gun
1 MT-LBM 6MB
1 MT-LB Ambulance
10 MT-LBu
6 1V13 battery fire control center
2 1V14 battery command and forward observer vehicle
6 1V119 artillery fire direction vehicle
2 Vityaz DT-30 articulated tracked carrier
1 2S1 with ZU-23 AA gun
7 9P149 Shturm-S ATGM carrier
1 BMD-1KSh-A command vehicle
13 R-149MA1 command and staff vehicle
11 R-149MA3 command and staff vehicle
1 9S470M1 (or variant thereof) command post (for Buk-M1/2)
4 TZM-T reloader vehicle (for TOS-1A)
15 Unknown BTR-D/BMD-2
4 Unknown BTR-80/BTR-82A
34 Unknown AFV

And for the Ukrainians, the same types with the addition of the Ukrainian domestic Vepr MRAP.

Tanks, APV are listed separately. Feel free to check the sources yourself.

[Jake899]

Diplomatico said:

Why the big misalignment between naval ships? How did Russia manage to destroy so many Ukrainian ones?

Six of these are captured Coast Guard small patrol boats. The rest are small patrol boats with the exception being the Frigate “Hetman Sahaydachniy” which was scuttled in port to prevent capture by the Russians. The remainder of the Ukrainian fleet is in port at Odessa.

[Jake899]

saaby93 said:

Jake899 said:

mcdjl said:

That looks like:

Item	Lost by Ukraine	Lost by Russia	Captured by Ukraine	Captured by Russia
tanks	79	310	131
armoured fighting vehicles	60	229	87
infantry fighting vehicles	60	303	107
armoured personnel carriers	29	77	41
Mine Resistant ambush protected vehicles		12	5
infantry mobility vehicles	32	65	20
communications stations		12	5
engineering vehicles and equipment	7	60	31
anti tank guided missiles	51	63	39
Man Portable Air Defence systems	16	24	24
towed artillery	25	42	27
self propelled artillery	16	60	24
multiple rocket launchers	6	34	15
Anti aircraft guns	2	3	3
Self propelled anti aircraft guns	1	9	1
surface to air missile systems	21	40	12
Radars	10	3	2
Jammers and deception systems		6
aircraft	12	16	2
helicopters	1	36
UAVs	9	16	5
Naval ships	13	3
Logistics trains		2
jeeps, trucks and vehicles	186	640	185
Heavy motars			8

Excellent buddy thanks.
A quick look at the data shows missile systems and aircraft are really the only net loss for the Ukraine, in most other factors the proportions are moving in their favour. Let’s remember that captured DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN USEABLE. The Ukrainians may not be able to repair, service or rearm Russian war booty.
The aircraft and missile systems are also the highest strategic value items and the hardest to replace. The fact that these are not being captured indicates they are being destroyed by precision strikes from afar rather than overrun on the ground, and the media reports certainly back that up.
On the positive side, both sides use a majority of these weapons (although in different iterations) so many parts, systems, ammunition and training will be interchangeable.
For example both Ukraine and Russia operate the T-64 and T72 tanks, so Ukrainian tank crews should be able to jump straight in and go. However many of the Russian T-72 tanks are “B” or newer models. I am a tank ignoramus but if aircraft are anything to go by, I expect targeting systems, radios etc will be quite different and take some training to use efficiently.

What about buildings lost?

Civil structural losses are entirely Ukrainian and I’ll leave the listing of them to you!

[Jake899]

Error_404_Username_not_found said:

Interesting topic, thanks OP.
Also thanks to "mcdjl" for the excel reconciliations. When I first started reading the thread I thought I might have to do that myself!

What hasn't been mentioned is the (reportedly) large quantity of small arms changing hands. Assault rifles, sidearms, ammunition etc. Some of which very useful to the defenders owing to the commonality of calibres, meaning they have a source of free materiel to arm informal militia.
Works both ways though. It's reported that the first thing Russian troops do with dead Ukrainian troops is nick their boots.

If the reportage is halfway accurate a major factor in the Russian losses of AFVs and other MT is simply poor maintenance of outdated, low quality hardware.
For example the wheeled MT might have the theoretic capability to vary tyre pressures "on the fly" as most military MT should, but they haven't been doing the basic PMS so when they drop the pressures the sidewalls split.

Put it this way; have you ever driven a Russian car?

The data lists the categories:
Destroyed
Damaged
Abandoned
Captured
I imagine that the abandoned and captured items are those that broke down, ran out of fuel, etc.
Western media reports that as being a significant amount in itself.

[Jake899]

Beati Dogu said:

Bigends said:

Depleted Uranium rounds arent explosive rounds so not sure whet good theyd be against fortifications. They rely on kinetic energy to pierce the target. High explosive rounds would be far more effective. A depleted Uranium round would just drill a hole in the structure and probably exit the other side.

As I understand it, DU is pyrophoric, which means it bursts into flame under the immense pressure and high temperature of impact, spraying the target’s insides with burning debris. The main alternative, tungsten, could potentially over-penetrate and go through both sides without damaging anything. Unlikely, especially In compact Russian tank of course.

The long term heavy metal poisoning with tungsten is likely as equally bad as DU.

For a softer target, HE Frag or HEAT would be selected ideally. HESH if you’re British probably.

In my mind, all I can see is German AA 88mm gunners in North Africa using direct fire against Wavell and Monty’s troops and scaring them half to death. Very effective, an AA gun against a tank. They didn’t need DU but then again a Mathilda tank is a different beast to a T-72 by a long way.

[Jake899]

Really interesting to hear the discussion on the long term harm of contamination from various rounds. It’s fair to say military equipment is not designed to be safe for the environment, and Ukraine will have to deal with these toxic chemicals, land mines, etc for a long time to come.
Also interesting to see reports of Generals being killed are greatly exaggerated. I’m not surprised, as has been already said, war necessitates good morale and reports of victories however small to keep the machine rolling. The basic facts are unchanged:
Russia has invaded the Ukraine.
The Ukraine forces have held back Russia more than expected.
Russian materiel losses are staggering.
Everything else is uncertain.